If you like discussing politics and other related topics then your new home (hopefully) for doing just that can be found on Punndits.com! Come join us and help us grow Punndits into a wonderful and safe place to discuss politics with everyone.

Risk/Reward

Jimmy was aggressive and forced the issue in game management and play calling. While he relied on Norv to actually call the plays, he had input and when to risk.

One of my favorite stories is the '92 NFC Championship game.

Rice just scored a touchdown and the 9ers pulled within three. The momentum had shifted and it appeared as if the 9ers were the best team.

Norv called down to Jimmy and asked him what he wanted to do when they got the ball.

I think Norv said something like, "Do you want to run out the clock or what?"

Jimmy said, "I want to score."

Well don't we all.

But if you recall, Jimmy went for a fourth and one and didn't make it earlier in the game. So the I want to score comment was not an isolated risk, but a calculated keep the pressure on the other team decision throughout the game.

The question is this.

Dallas miraculously makes the NFC Championship game. Garrett somehow has the team poised late in the game. He has to make the decision to go for broke or play it safe.

Which would you do?

Be aggressive or be passive and try to run out the clock?

Now we have to assume the defense is playing at an NFL top ten level and not the community college strata we saw last year.

You shouldn't predicate your response on "Well,. the defense couldn't beat Slippery Rock if they were spotted twenty points."

If we had a team like the one that we have now (for example), I try to score...by that I mean, possession game where we gets some first downs and force the opponent to use their time outs...it isn't a matter of being afraid to rely on the defense being able to hold, it is more that I am relying on the strength of the team (OL and offense in general) to take over the game

If we had a team like the one that we have now (for example), I try to score...by that I mean, possession game where we gets some first downs and force the opponent to use their time outs...it isn't a matter of being afraid to rely on the defense being able to hold, it is more that I am relying on the strength of the team (OL and offense in general) to take over the game

Click to expand...

Well thought out answer. Maybe a mixture of both. Run the ball and mix in safe passing plays. Then throw deep if the right coverage shows up.

I have no issue with the team losing if they play to win.

The Green Bay game was not the case. I think Opie doesn't have any imagination.

I would need to see what the team's strengths are after 16 games and playoog games. Maybe with this line the team can frequently produce 10 minute scoring drives running the ball 80% of the time. If thats the case, that sounds good, ill have that.

Jimmy was aggressive and forced the issue in game management and play calling. While he relied on Norv to actually call the plays, he had input and when to risk.

One of my favorite stories is the '92 NFC Championship game.

Rice just scored a touchdown and the 9ers pulled within three. The momentum had shifted and it appeared as if the 9ers were the best team.

Norv called down to Jimmy and asked him what he wanted to do when they got the ball.

I think Norv said something like, "Do you want to run out the clock or what?"

Jimmy said, "I want to score."

Well don't we all.

But if you recall, Jimmy went for a fourth and one and didn't make it earlier in the game. So the I want to score comment was not an isolated risk, but a calculated keep the pressure on the other team decision throughout the game.

The question is this.

Dallas miraculously makes the NFC Championship game. Garrett somehow has the team poised late in the game. He has to make the decision to go for broke or play it safe.

Which would you do?

Be aggressive or be passive and try to run out the clock?

Now we have to assume the defense is playing at an NFL top ten level and not the community college strata we saw last year.

You shouldn't predicate your response on "Well,. the defense couldn't beat Slippery Rock if they were spotted twenty points."

So, no guts no glory, or milk the clock and say a mumbled prayer?

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that JG is working with Romo who has a tendency to play worse in games like that. I say you still keep the pressure on, if your QB doesn't do his job, that isn't your fault.

Something similar happened vs the Patriots a few seasons ago and instead of throwing for the first down to run out the clock, they played it safe and ran the ball 3 times. Then punted to an elite QB who finished us off by throwing a TD to a murder.

Keep in mind that JG is working with Romo who has a tendency to play worse in games like that. I say you still keep the pressure on, if your QB doesn't do his job, that isn't your fault.

Something similar happened vs the Patriots a few seasons ago and instead of throwing for the first down to run out the clock, they played it safe and ran the ball 3 times. Then punted to an elite QB who finished us off by throwing a TD to a murder.

Jimmy was aggressive and forced the issue in game management and play calling. While he relied on Norv to actually call the plays, he had input and when to risk.

One of my favorite stories is the '92 NFC Championship game.

Rice just scored a touchdown and the 9ers pulled within three. The momentum had shifted and it appeared as if the 9ers were the best team.

Norv called down to Jimmy and asked him what he wanted to do when they got the ball.

I think Norv said something like, "Do you want to run out the clock or what?"

Jimmy said, "I want to score."

Well don't we all.

But if you recall, Jimmy went for a fourth and one and didn't make it earlier in the game. So the I want to score comment was not an isolated risk, but a calculated keep the pressure on the other team decision throughout the game.

The question is this.

Dallas miraculously makes the NFC Championship game. Garrett somehow has the team poised late in the game. He has to make the decision to go for broke or play it safe.

Which would you do?

Be aggressive or be passive and try to run out the clock?

Now we have to assume the defense is playing at an NFL top ten level and not the community college strata we saw last year.

You shouldn't predicate your response on "Well,. the defense couldn't beat Slippery Rock if they were spotted twenty points."

So, no guts no glory, or milk the clock and say a mumbled prayer?

Click to expand...

There are alot variables in the decision. Going for it, in many cases is actually placing faith in your defense, since if you don't make it the opposition is going to have much better field position versus had you punted it away. So for me, the big question is who is the opposing QB. If it's QB's like Manning, Rogers or Brady, I simply want to hold on to the ball for as long as possible. Trying to score is great, but keeping them off the field and the clock running is my ultimate objective. One of things I have hated about Garrett's playing calling is that in those types of situations, he has simply ran the ball three times, even when it was 3rd and long and punted; if I recall correctly, he did that against the Patriots a few years ago. That in my opinoin, is being a little too careful. I prefer being and seeing aggressive, but I think I would really have to be sitting in that situation to provide a definitive answer.

Two things. Lee missed his chance early in that war when he was fighting and winning in Virginia and did not head into DC immediately but withdrew from the field.

That can be said about Hitler after Dunkirk. He did not follow the English into their homeland and take advantage and also remove the launching place fore D-Day.

Second, think about the results of the Aikman pass to Harper as what saved Jimmy's bacon from being roasted by the press for his 4th and 1 like Switzer.

Also, consider that pass was Aikman's The Catch. It launched a dynasty.

Click to expand...

True, but you're comparing "Strategy", i.e. how Lee/Hitler were going to fight one segment of the war with the "tactics" of that pass play. Being bold strategically and being bold tactically are different matters.

That play not withstanding, If anything I view Jimmy more as a conservative kind of guy– pushing the running game over the passing game... Using conservative defensive schemes which weren't big on blitzing.

Jimmy was aggressive and forced the issue in game management and play calling. While he relied on Norv to actually call the plays, he had input and when to risk.

One of my favorite stories is the '92 NFC Championship game.

Rice just scored a touchdown and the 9ers pulled within three. The momentum had shifted and it appeared as if the 9ers were the best team.

Norv called down to Jimmy and asked him what he wanted to do when they got the ball.

I think Norv said something like, "Do you want to run out the clock or what?"

Jimmy said, "I want to score."

Well don't we all.

But if you recall, Jimmy went for a fourth and one and didn't make it earlier in the game. So the I want to score comment was not an isolated risk, but a calculated keep the pressure on the other team decision throughout the game.

The question is this.

Dallas miraculously makes the NFC Championship game. Garrett somehow has the team poised late in the game. He has to make the decision to go for broke or play it safe.

Which would you do?

Be aggressive or be passive and try to run out the clock?

Now we have to assume the defense is playing at an NFL top ten level and not the community college strata we saw last year.

You shouldn't predicate your response on "Well,. the defense couldn't beat Slippery Rock if they were spotted twenty points."

So, no guts no glory, or milk the clock and say a mumbled prayer?

Click to expand...

Well it's obvious JG will play time mgmt run the ball and leave it to the D to close out the deal. Its the right thing to do. Unless the D been poor this game. I would not try to put it in Romo hands unless we are down.
With this new rebuilt OL we should be able to play like this all year. I have a feeling our defense will be horrible.

If we had a team like the one that we have now (for example), I try to score...by that I mean, possession game where we gets some first downs and force the opponent to use their time outs...it isn't a matter of being afraid to rely on the defense being able to hold, it is more that I am relying on the strength of the team (OL and offense in general) to take over the game

Click to expand...

Yup and that's the problem we have we relied to heavily on a defense that was never that strong while we never put up any points.

Keep in mind that JG is working with Romo who has a tendency to play worse in games like that. I say you still keep the pressure on, if your QB doesn't do his job, that isn't your fault.

Something similar happened vs the Patriots a few seasons ago and instead of throwing for the first down to run out the clock, they played it safe and ran the ball 3 times. Then punted to an elite QB who finished us off by throwing a TD to a murder.

Click to expand...

Yes I remember that game. I'm screaming JG are you nuts!!!!! Do not give it to Brady with a few minutes left on the clock. I wanted to see Romo take that medal home for once. Our defense played a good stable game but once a team like NE or Saints start to play 4 downs on you it get kind of hard to stop them.

If this was the only defense they ran, I might agree this is a passing situation. But one play doesn't mean the entire second half went this way.

Click to expand...

No it didn't, but the play was actually a run with a pass option and Romo went with the second option because of the pre-snap read.

However, with the Packers crowding the LOS in the second half to stop their leaky run defense it begs the question how many run plays were "Kill, Kill, Kill" 'ed into that second option?

A few people mentioned it earlier, but the Patriots game went conservative and we lost. Now they try to be aggressive and they lose. I've reviewed games on my own extensively and I've seen countless times were Romo has changed the play to pass from a run because of a stacked box. I've even posted a few of those threads here at one point.

The problem has been where this team tries to go for the throat and misses and gets countered in the back of the head for a knockout.

My concern with Romo is that this will never change with him, and he will make those calls when he sees the coverage dictate the play. And the scary part about that is that the OL is turning into a huge strength for this team and Romo's mindset doesn't seem to change.